Apple has sent formal legal preservation letters to roughly 40 former Apple employees now working at OpenAI, instructing them to hold onto documents, communications, and files that could be relevant to its ongoing trade secret lawsuit, the Financial Times reported Thursday. The move comes one week after Apple sued OpenAI in the US District Court for the Northern District of California — and it signals that the company believes the alleged theft reaches far beyond the two individuals it named in its original complaint.
🔍 THE BOTTOM LINE
Preservation letters are not lawsuits. They are a discovery drill — a way to lock down evidence before it can disappear, and a signal that the sender expects to need it. Apple sending 40 of them, one week after filing suit against two named engineers, tells you the case is widening. Apple’s own filing called the evidence “the tip of the iceberg.” The letters are how you find the rest of the iceberg.
What a Preservation Letter Actually Is
A preservation letter is a formal legal notice — not a complaint, not a subpoena — telling a recipient that litigation is underway and that they have a duty to preserve potentially relevant materials. The recipient isn’t named as a defendant. But failure to preserve after receiving the letter can later be treated as spoliation of evidence, which carries its own sanctions in US federal court.
In practical terms, the letters mean the 40 recipients must retain emails, Slack messages, texts, files, calendars, and anything else that might plausibly relate to Apple’s claims. It also means Apple can later seek discovery from them, and they can’t claim they didn’t know to keep the material. This is the standard playbook in complex intellectual property litigation — MacDailyNews’s summary notes that legal experts describe the letters as “standard in complex intellectual property cases” and a clear signal of Apple’s intent to build a broader case through discovery.
What the Original Lawsuit Alleged
Apple’s July 10 complaint — 41 pages, filed in the Northern District of California — names two individual defendants alongside OpenAI entities: Tang Tan, OpenAI’s Chief Hardware Officer and a 24-year Apple veteran who led iPhone and Apple Watch product design, and Chang Liu, a former senior systems electrical engineer who left Apple for OpenAI in January 2026.
The allegations are specific. Apple claims Liu, after leaving Apple, discovered an authentication vulnerability that still gave him access to Apple’s network storage — and rather than reporting it, used it to download dozens of confidential files, including technical presentations, spreadsheets, and “a compilation of technical files with over a thousand pages.” He then allegedly shared links to Apple’s proprietary materials with an Apple employee still at the company. Tan is accused of using Apple’s internal project code names during OpenAI interviews to solicit information about unreleased Apple products, and of coaching departing Apple employees on how to evade Apple’s security procedures during their exit.
Apple says more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI. The company claims it wrote OpenAI in February to raise concerns and received no response, which it says forced the lawsuit.
Why 40 Letters Is a Significant Escalation
The original complaint named two people. The preservation letters target roughly 40. That ratio matters. Filing suit against named individuals who allegedly did specific things is a focused legal action. Sending preservation notices to 40 ex-employees across OpenAI is a fishing expedition with teeth — Apple is telling the court and the defendants that it expects discovery to surface more misconduct, not less.
The letters also put OpenAI in an awkward position. The company has to decide whether to cooperate with its own employees’ compliance, fight the scope of the preservation duty, or risk later spoliation claims. Apple’s filing alleges that OpenAI coached departing employees on how to “avoid the dreaded walk out” — the standard two-week notice period that preserves access to company systems. If Apple can show a pattern of evasion, the preservation letters are the first step toward proving it.
OpenAI’s Response
OpenAI has denied the allegations. In a statement to Bloomberg reported by The News, the company said it is “not aware of any evidence that this complaint has merit.” On X, OpenAI’s public statement read: “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets. We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.”
That is a careful sentence. “No interest in” is not the same as “did not benefit from.” Apple’s case doesn’t require OpenAI to have sought the trade secrets directly — it requires showing that OpenAI knew or should have known its employees were using confidential Apple information to accelerate its hardware work. The preservation letters are how Apple tries to prove that knowledge.
What This Means for OpenAI’s Hardware Ambitions
Apple is asking the court for an injunction barring OpenAI from using any Apple-derived information in the development of its AI hardware device, plus monetary damages. If granted, even partially, that injunction could stall a hardware program OpenAI has reportedly been pushing aggressively — the same program Tang Tan was hired to lead.
The preservation letters extend the risk surface. If discovery turns up emails or messages from any of the 40 recipients suggesting broader use of Apple confidential information, Apple will amend its complaint. The original suit becomes the first wave, not the whole case.
The Precedent Question
California limits non-compete agreements, which is why big tech talent flows freely between companies. But trade secret law is a different animal — it doesn’t bar employees from working for competitors, it bars them from taking confidential information with them. The Apple-OpenAI case is shaping up to be a major test of where that line sits in the AI era, when employees routinely move between labs and the “confidential information” in question might be model architectures, training recipes, or hardware designs rather than the source code of a legacy product.
NZ Angle
New Zealand companies hiring from US AI labs should be watching this closely. NZ employment law doesn’t import California’s non-compete restrictions wholesale, but trade secret obligations travel with the employee. If a Kiwi startup hires an ex-OpenAI or ex-Apple engineer, the duty to preserve confidential information from prior employers still applies — and US courts have shown willingness to reach across jurisdictions in trade secret cases. The Apple-OpenAI escalation is a reminder that “we hired great people” can become “we are now a party to a US lawsuit” faster than most founders expect.
❓ FAQ
Are the 40 recipients being sued? No. Preservation letters are not complaints. They create a duty to preserve evidence but do not name the recipient as a defendant. However, recipients can be drawn into the case later as third-party discovery targets or, if evidence surfaces, as additional defendants.
Could OpenAI block its employees from complying? Legally, no — the duty to preserve falls on the individual once the letter is received. OpenAI can advise its employees on counsel and process, but actively obstructing preservation would expose the company to spoliation sanctions.
How long until this resolves? Trade secret litigation in federal court typically runs 18-36 months to trial, longer if there are interlocutory appeals. Apple’s injunction request could be decided within months — that’s the near-term watch item.
What’s the worst case for OpenAI? An injunction barring use of Apple-derived information in its hardware program, plus damages, plus the reputational drag of a prolonged discovery process in which internal communications become public. The preservation letters are how Apple widens the discovery aperture.
🔍 THE BOTTOM LINE
One week ago Apple sued two people. This week it sent preservation letters to 40. Next comes discovery — emails, messages, files, the digital paper trail of who knew what and when. Apple’s filing said the evidence was “the tip of the iceberg.” The letters are the net the iceberg is about to be caught in. Whether OpenAI’s hardware program survives the catch is the question the rest of the industry will spend the next year answering.
📰 Sources
- MacRumors — Report: Apple Sends Legal Letters to Dozens of OpenAI Employees
- MacDailyNews — Apple sends legal preservation letters to dozens of former employees now at OpenAI
- The News — Apple sends legal letters to dozens of ex-staff at OpenAI
- TechCrunch — Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft
- Courthouse News — Apple v. OpenAI complaint (PDF)
- Financial Times — Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters
